BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

10 results for “capital gains”+ Section 163(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai386Delhi326Chennai167Surat148Karnataka113Bangalore104Jaipur86Ahmedabad73Hyderabad70Chandigarh69Agra68Kolkata63Indore55Cochin51Raipur33Pune26Lucknow23Nagpur22Visakhapatnam20Calcutta19Guwahati14Telangana10SC8Varanasi8Dehradun6Rajkot6Patna5Allahabad5Amritsar5Jabalpur4Rajasthan3Ranchi3Jodhpur2Panaji2Andhra Pradesh1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 80P(2)(a)8Section 260A6Exemption5Deduction5Section 464Business Income4Section 10(38)2Section 3022Section 3642Section 201

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

ITTA/250/2013HC Telangana11 Jul 2013

capitalizing it with the multiplier of 14 on the basis of age of the claimant mother (44 years old) in view of dicta in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 738. 14. The claimants by their appeal (MAC appeal No. 881/2015) submit that the non-pecuniary heads of damages have not been property taken

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/715/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

163, 289 of 2008; 315, 392, 410, 413 of 2010; and 24 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business

2

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/243/2007HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

163, 289 of 2008; 315, 392, 410, 413 of 2010; and 24 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/718/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

163, 289 of 2008; 315, 392, 410, 413 of 2010; and 24 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

ITTA/711/2006HC Telangana07 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260ASection 46Section 80P(2)(a)

163, 289 of 2008; 315, 392, 410, 413 of 2010; and 24 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this group of Income Tax Tribunal Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter, the Act) the common question of law raised by the Revenue is whether a cooperative society carrying on the business

Sri Natakari Gopal vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

ITTA/238/2022HC Telangana18 Aug 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 260A

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A[SMC]” Bench in ITA No.1018/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/s. Kamma Sangaham, vs. The Director of Income -Tax (Exemptions),

ITTA/19/2013HC Telangana19 Jun 2013
Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1961’]. 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the assessing officer, which was also affirmed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter to this Court in ITA No.271 of 2005, which was disposed

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/3/2020HC Telangana25 Aug 2020

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

ITTA/147/2013HC Telangana28 Jun 2013
For Appellant: - Sri Yug Mohit Chaudhary assistedFor Respondent: - A.G.A., Sri Amit Mishra, Sri Gyan
Section 156(3)Section 201Section 302Section 363Section 364Section 366Section 376

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

ITTA/30/2023HC Telangana04 Sept 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1. 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, having its office at Yojna Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), PIN 834 002. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Jharkhand Mantralaya (Project Building), PO. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand), 3. The Director, Mines